On 11/25/2015 1:03 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> [151125 11:50]: >> On Wednesday 25 November 2015 10:16:44 Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [151123 06:46]: >>>> On Sunday 22 November 2015 07:51:46 Pavel Machek wrote: >>>>> On Wed 2015-11-11 17:10:46, Frank Rowand wrote: >>>>>> Adding devicetree list. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thread starts at >>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/354459.html >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/5/2015 8:17 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>> * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [151105 03:41]: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 16:37:46 Pali Rohár wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday 12 October 2015 13:45:09 Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>>>>> * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [151012 13:29]: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday 12 October 2015 22:16:40 Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pali, any news on posting an updated series with the comments >>>>>>>>>>>> addressed in this thread? It seems that we all pretty much agree >>>>>>>>>>>> what needs to be done. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not real happy with the concept of patches 4 and 5 in this series. >>>>>> My concern is that those two patches are using the FDT as a transport >>>>>> mechanism for a binary blob (the atags object). >>>>> >>>>> Umm. Ok. Do you have alternative proposal that works for everyone? >>>>> >>>>> I mean. This discussion was going for quite a long time, and it would >>>>> be nice to have some solution... patch proposal... something. >>>>> Pavel >>>> >>>> Yes, discussion is going for a long time! So should I spend time for >>>> adding documentation to my solution (this is last one thing which is >>>> missing)? Or my solution is wrong and somebody else will propose new? >>>> I do not want to spend time on something which will be rejected and >>>> discarded. >>> >>> At least I don't have better solutions in mind. >> >> I would be happier if we could restrict this as much as possible to the >> boards that need it, as an opt-in. That way it doesn't become an ABI The feature (in whatever form it takes) should be definitely be highly restricted and marked as deprecated. >> for people that don't already rely in this information. How about >> adding a check the code adds the linux,atags property to do it >> only for a whitelist of board numbers? > > Or populate /proc/atags only for the ones that need it from machine > specific init_early? This is circling back to the first comment from Russell King where he suggested a legacy file for the N900 which calls save_atags(): Are the ATAGs at a fixed address on the N900? Can that be handled in some kind of legacy file for the N900 which calls save_atags() on it, so we don't end up introducing yet more stuff that we have to maintain into the distant future? If not, what about copying a known working atag structure into a legacy file for the N900? It seems to me that patches 1, 2, 4, and 5 could be replaced by this approach. Regards, Frank -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
